As long as an out-of-state visitor has properly registered their guns in their home state, they may legally transport them in Illinois without a license here, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled this week.

Today, in the case of Illinois v. Holmes (from 2005), the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that if a visitor to Illinois has a license or registration from his home State, for his firearms, he can transport his firearms within the State.

The case is extremely interesting on several counts. See Mishaga v. Monken where the State is arguing almost exactly what Holmes argued in his defense and the plaintiff is arguing almost exactly what the State argued in Holmes.

Certainly, having a CCW permit (from your home State) qualifies, without any question. One implication is that in a State that does not require registration or licensing of guns, having a non-resident CCW should also qualify. Yet another implication is that your being a lawful owner (a none prohibited person) is as good as having a license or registration, assuming no such license or registration is required in your home State.

In the short term, I expect to see the Federal case mooted by this ruling of the Illinois Supreme Court.

Good to see another pro-gun decision in Illinois though.
I would still be cautious about getting ahead of ourselves as gun owners in Illinois.
I cant seem to find the article today, But I stumbled onto a very interesting article yesterday in the Chicago Tribune that I personally feel staked out the future plans of Cook County's anti gun politicians. Basically soon to be ex-mayor of Chicago Richard Daley made it very clear that Chicago and Cook county would fight any CCW laws on the city/county level. The sad part is they have the votes to pass about any anti gun law ordnance they wish.

Your still going to have to transport the weapon in an legal manner, which in Illinois means not concealed on one's person. Meaning, unloaded, and in a container that is able to be closed. A glove box, closing center console is acceptable.

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4)

Carries or Possesses in any vehicle or concealed on or about his person except when on his land, or in his own abode or fixed place of business any pistol, revolver, stun gun, or taser or other firearm, except that this subsection (a)(4) does not apply to or affect transportation of weapons that meet one of the follow conditions:

(i)are broken down in a non-functioning state; OR
(ii)are not immediately accessible;OR
(iii)are unloaded and enclosed in a case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container by a person who has been issued a currently valid FOID card

Now, I can see where one would argue that if it's not in condition (i) or (ii), the state says you have to have a FOID to be legal. It's been my practice to inform the visiting gun owner of the rule of transport, make sure they do indeed comply with that rule on my traffic stop, let them know what they do after the traffic stop is their business and see them on their way.

That's for the folks who show me that they have a CCL for their state, or listed on their DL, and inform me they are carrying. If they are already Illinois legal, see ya. Otherwise, see above.

I'm glad the courts ruled, IMHO, correctly and it's nice to see Illinois get something right when it comes to firearms.

As long as an out-of-state visitor has properly registered their guns in their home state, they may legally transport them in Illinois without a license here, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled this week.

Well now that seems like some slippery language since there is no registration at all in most states.

...and it'd make it easier for folks from other obstructionist states (like NJ) to transport their guns than it would be for people hailing from free states! Who'd-a thunk it? The really funny part is that it'd even be easier than transporting guns here at "home" since I could make stops en route! Ah the screwiness of gun laws...

Well, at least it's a step in the right direction. Not a big step... kinda more like a toe wiggle... but anything's better than nothing. Hopefully it won't just be used as a way to harass folks from states that don't require government approval for the exercise of 2A rights.

No. I didn't. I know the rank and file police officers are more friendly to gun rights of citizens than the police chiefs but police lieutenants are high enough up the chain that political correctness starts playing a larger part in their jobs -- at least that's my outsider's opinion.

__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.